[cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot SC10 – Establishing the Network Security Subcommittee of the SCWG

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Fri Sep 14 21:15:59 UTC 2018

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:50 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek at digicert.com>

> Wayne,
> My position is that LWGs are handled via the process in 5.3.4, and not
> 5.3.1(e), and as such, the Validation WG is somewhat special.  This was
> actually the intent of the Governance Reform effort; it was intended that
> the Governance Reform effort would not be used to obstruct or impede the
> functioning of existing working groups (I’ll note that obstructing the work
> of the Forum is explicitly called out in the Code of Conduct as a Code of
> Conduct violation).  As I’ve stated repeatedly, I will probably support any
> and/or all attempts to improve clarity in this area, as long as it doesn’t
> impede the important work of the Validation WG.  Though the suggestion that
> it is unclear whether Subcommittees have chairs is completely bizarre.
> I’ve never been a member of a standards working group or committee that
> didn’t, and I’ve been on **WAY** too many of them.  Extraordinary claims
> require extraordinary evidence.

Can you point to where the Bylaws describe how Subcommittees operate? Can
you point to where Ballot 206 describes how subcommittees operate? Can you
point to a list during or prior to this discussion that describes how
subcommittees operate?

The point is that these elements are not defined, anywhere. It sounds like
multiple members unsurprisingly arose at different definitions and
understandings, some reasonable, some not, and now it's an effort of the
SCWG to sort out what the definition "should" be and to adopt a process to
memorialize that in a way that isn't "Well, I threatened a Code of Conduct
complaint, so I must be right"

Here's a simple path forward:
- The SCWG has not defined how Subcommittees are formed. One interpretation
suggests that means nothing is required - not even to the degree of
consensus. Another interpretation suggests that means in the absence of
definition, a ballot is required.
- The SCWG has not defined how Subcommittees are operated, nor do the
Bylaws. A subcommittee is clearly a part of a CWG, but the obligations and
expectations of that subcommittee - does it use a public mail list, does it
produce minutes, does it permit calls - is not defined. The Bylaws allow
CWGs to define that, but the SCWG has not. One interpretation suggests that
means that subcommittees can do whatever they want. Another suggests that
until the SCWG defines that, it's inadvisable to form subcommittees.

The easiest solution is to resolve both of these with ballots, even if
other interpretations may have value.

The issue(s) with SC9 and SC10 is that they (presently) are missing that
second half that the Bylaws indicate the SCWG's charter should address, but
the current SCWG's charter does not, nor do the Bylaws. In the absence of
that, or a change in the charter, simply addressing these via SC9/SC10 to
clarify what will happen and how it will happen will resolve (temporarily)
the fundamental issue, and then subsequent work can be done to clarify for
the SCWG going forward how Subcommittees will operate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180914/eb3e3ac3/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list